How do you know when you are done?

[PeterA]

I’ve read quite a few of this posts where he talks about music. And, he’s obviously interested in technology. What’s wrong with that?I think everyone here is interested in the technology also to some extent.

I don’t think it serves any good purpose to try to put people into categories.

Agreed. Yes, he discusses music sometimes too. I never claimed there is anything wrong with that. We each have our interests.

 

[PeterA]

I have actually mentioned that point many times when Ron brought up the list of 4 points, in different words, but he never related to that

Yeah, I don't really get the four goals thing either. It did not stick from what I can tell.

At first I thought you were alluding to Ron's interesting list of top five visited systems. They are all different which supports riding around on different horses on a Merry Go Round, always swapping gear and going around and around along for the ride. Once one gets to the point that he thinks he is done, he jumps off his last horse and then steps off the Merry Go Round to enjoy the music.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yeah, I don't really get the four goals thing either. It did not stick from what I can tell.

At first I thought you were alluding to Ron's interesting list of top five visited systems. They are all different which supports riding around on different horses on a Merry Go Round. That gets one to knowing when he is done and jumping off the horse and then stepping off the Merry Go Round.

that's quite silo elitist 'speak' if you ask me. 'one true way' talk. even if that is not your intent.

so you believe that a preference for the final result musically of a system needs be more component related than what you hear? that different systems approaching system building differently cannot all attain very positive results? that somehow appreciating different approaches invalidates results?

or maybe i am not understanding your merry-go-round analogy? seems a negative sort of lean to me.

you did not mention recordings or media.

 

[PeterA]

that's quite silo elitist 'speak' if you ask me. 'one true way' talk. even if that is not your intent.

so you believe that a preference for the final result musically of a system needs be more component related than what you hear? that different systems approaching system building differently cannot all attain very positive results? that somehow appreciating different approaches invalidates results?

or maybe i am not understanding your merry-go-round analogy? seems a negative sort of lean to me.

you did not mention recordings or media.

Nope. All horses are more or less the same, and we enjoy different ones. But they look slightly different, don't they? We all ride around and around until that point we decide we are done for whatever reason. It is personal and this thread is all about that. It is only then that we jump off the horse and step off the Merry Go Round. It's just an analogy a friend told me.

 

[Kingrex]

I thought I was close to done, but darn it!!!!!! Remember these pic from some pages back. Well, the drivers and some resistors are breaking in really well. I have about 70 hours on the new CD. They are supposed to take about 200 hours to break in. The sound is really getting good. Issue is, I can now more readily hear some deficiency that I was not aware of before. Mostly in scale and ease of music delivery. It really makes me want to biamp. Or really triamp. Direct couple drivers to the amplifier. My gut says that is going to be the trick.

 

[JiminGa]

“ digital is more hunt and peck one at a time”

I hear this said often. Is this really the way people listen to music? I’ve always listened to complete albums whether with analogue or digital. I read books one at a time also. but I know people who are reading eight different books all simultaneously.

I don’t speak for people but it’s the way it frequently works with me. Most current pop music isn’t made in a way that invites listeners to listen to the whole album as a piece for example. It’s a different experience for me and I enjoy both.

 

[JiminGa]

digital is excellent. the differences are not night and day, not about winners and losers. but they are significant and musically profound and clear.

I totally agree. For me they are also different experientially. I love both but prefer one to the other depending upon what I am listening to and my intent that day.

 

[bonzo75]

Most people on WBF discuss gear more than music, including you, Peter.

When was the last time you participated on a music thread on WBF? I could ask Mark the same thing, BTW.

There is no point making this a music forum, there are many with way more content and higher maturity level. Anyone can google music. This is a very different point from using music and recordings to audition/discuss gear

 

[Al M.]

There is no point making this a music forum, there are many with way more content and higher maturity level. Anyone can google music. This is a very different point from using music and recordings to audition/discuss gear

Of course, I agree, even though some music threads here are interesting. I just had been replying to the question gear vs music.

 

[microstrip]

I believe you belong to a small, but quite vocal, sub-group of audiophiles who are into gear more than music enjoyment.

Only bad faith or ignorance of past activity in the forum can motivate such post. I have often posted on recordings and music preferences, surely to illustrate my gear preferences.

Measurements and advanced engineering mattering most? That is not a bad thing, it is what interests you. However I believe it would be a mistake to argue with those audiophiles who prefer sound quality, based upon measurements or interesting engineering details, as IMHO, they have no direct relationship.

Yes, but participating in WBF is not exactly listening to music. And sound reproduction needs gear. This forum is focused on high-end audio.

Sorry to see ho you try to re-write my post, fully modifying its sense.

In some subjects, proper measurements and advanced engineering matter because they explain a lot, and particularly, can show when we are simply biased, as our subjective findings violate physics. Surely you have to understand measurements to debate them, something you seem not able to do. Feel free to live in the word of "magic".

 

[microstrip]

Look I get the allure of both but one type of joy is not superior to another for all people.

Nice you also think so!

The growth/learning comes from the personal discovery not from defending it or enforcing it on someone else. In my case I started with vinyl back in the 60s. My fondest memories are listening as a teenager with my best friends. To this day certain music is best listened to on vinyl. “What’s going on”, “Dark side of the moon “. Cohesive musical statements designed to be listened to as a whole. Digital is more hunt and peck one at a time. Some music has no well recorded digital option so vinyl is best there as well.

Surely. No one will disagree with it - I said the same several times. It is why I still keep vinyl - my valuable "Dark side of the moon" is not financing my digital adventures.

No matter what format you listen to it shouldn’t affect you choice of speaker or amplification if that’s what you getting at.

Here we disagree. IMO the particulars of the two formats in terms of information can influence the system choice.

They care more about room interaction, linearity and noise reduction than whether the analog signal they were fed was converted from digital.

In general, I found that room interaction is more critical with digital than with vinyl. Just MO.

I honestly don’t understand the debate. These days there are awesome choices for each.

I can easily understand you are not interested in it. But the main point is that digital has strongly influenced most of the 21st century high-end and better understanding it will help audiophiles to discuss it.

 

[Al M.]

Sorry to see ho you try to re-write my post, fully modifying its sense.

Yes, that is obvious. As I pointed out, he also tried to rewrite a post of mine by selectively quoting from it, thereby distorting its meaning.

In some subjects, proper measurements and advanced engineering matter because they explain a lot, and particularly, can show when we are simply biased, as our subjective findings violate physics. Surely you have to understand measurements to debate them, something you seem not able to do. Feel free to live in the word of "magic".

Obviously, the engineers of the favorite gear of the measurement-averse crowd also relied, next to listening, on -- gasp, dare I say it, yes, measurements.

 

[JiminGa]

You when you re done ,...

when you finished reading F. toole s book 3 times .
And you are still in love with

Nice you also think so!



Surely. No one will disagree with it - I said the same several times. It is why I still keep vinyl - my valuable "Dark side of the moon" is not financing my digital adventures.



Here we disagree. IMO the particulars of the two formats in terms of information can influence the system choice.



In general, I found that room interaction is more critical with digital than with vinyl. Just MO.



I can easily understand you are not interested in it. But the main point is that digital has strongly influenced most of the 21st century high-end and better understanding it will help audiophiles to discuss it.

OK. All good but tell me how the "information" is different. Sound waves of various frequencies are exiting the speakers and interacting with the room in each instance. Neither the speakers nor the room are aware of whether or not it was converted from digital at some point. Are the frequencies different? Any noise associated with either should be eliminated via proper set up. I agree digital is very finicky and tricky to deal with but once you do that isn't a problem. I am asking honestly because I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[microstrip]

OK. All good but tell me how the "information" is different. Sound waves of various frequencies are exiting the speakers and interacting with the room in each instance. Neither the speakers nor the room are aware of whether or not it was converted from digital at some point. Are the frequencies different? Any noise associated with either should be eliminated via proper set up. I agree digital is very finicky and tricky to deal with but once you do that isn't a problem. I am asking honestly because I don't know what you're talking about.

The amount of information that digital is able to handle is superior to tape - I am not addressing direct cut LPs. This means that the current sound engineer practices to create a digital recording are different nowadays. In my experience and knowledge - I am ignoring pleasantness or preference, digital shows more information more accurately. Stereo sound reproduction is a balance of accuracy , but also of hiding technical tricks. Excessive information exposition will spoil our illusion.

It is known that common acoustic instrument recordings do not carry enough phase information to provide acceptable depth information. Do you know how sound engineers manipulate depth inside the soundstage ?

Digital and analog formats are not equivalent. It took a long time before sound engineers could adapt to do digital.

BTW, the F. Toole book does not address specifically digital, but prepares us to understand general stereo matters - surely not the high-end audio that is purposely forgotten for good reasons.

 

[Rensselaer]

In some subjects, proper measurements and advanced engineering matter because they explain a lot, and particularly, can show when we are simply biased, as our subjective findings violate physics. Surely you have to understand measurements to debate them, something you seem not able to do. Feel free to live in the word of "magic".

I agree that some measurements are necessary, but you can’t predict the sound of any given piece of equipment by comparing measurements.

I believe testing components by swapping and listening, one piece at a time, will yield much better results. Consider this video put together by Steve Deckert explaining his design and parts selection considerations for his highly respected Zen: (he explains things in a way that even us dummies who are awed by magic can understand).

In fact, some designers (Steve among them) found that testing and tweaking to get a more square wave usually results in terrible sound.

 

[microstrip]

I agree that some measurements are necessary, but you can’t predict the sound of any given piece of equipment by comparing measurements.

No one was addressing systematic complete prediction of sound quality. Please do not change people intentions.

I believe testing components by swapping and listening, one piece at a time, will yield much better results. Consider this video put together by Steve Deckert explaining his design and parts selection considerations for his highly respected Zen:

In fact, some designers (Steve among them) found that testing and tweaking to get a more square wave usually results in terrible sound.

This is nowhere relevant to what was being addressed. Also, sorry I do not loose my time in videos, but I am always happy to read something we can quote and write about.

Gear comparison for me is essentially a process of exclusion - measurements can help a lot if we understand them and know how to correlate them with what we listen.

 

[Rensselaer]

The question is how do you know when you are done. I’ve been an audiophile for 50+ years and heard a lot of stuff, most of which never did it for me. I am nearing that point where I know I’m done. I thought I had reached it with my tricked-out Garrard 301, linear tracking Reed, Phasemation cartridge and SUT, Ypsilon phono amp, modified Altec A7 VOT speakers and Ongaku copy (in copper) SET amplifier. That is until I heard a 2.3 watt Decware Zen swapped in. I was shocked by how nice my system sounded with that change and have changed my order on the Decware waiting list from a 300B Sarah to a zen UFO 25th anniversary amp. When I get that, I’ll be done (system-wise or life-wise).

 

[PeterA]

There is no point making this a music forum, there are many with way more content and higher maturity level. Anyone can google music. This is a very different point from using music and recordings to audition/discuss gear

Though I do agree with this, I did enjoy reading Tim’s latest thread about modern classical music. And he supplements his text with a video of his great sounding system. This is a nice combination and I learned from the post. It’s always good to learn about new music choices. And his recording sounds quite good.

 

[Iamrael]

ok, i think i see where you are going here.

i think threads focused on analog gear do bypass some posters (not much traction) who like to contest perspectives back and forth as a hobby unto itself......all in good fun, of course. where is the opportunity to stir the pot talking about a turntable or tonearm? mostly interested members want to learn about that analog piece to see whether it might be for them. something to learn. not just an opportunity to go off on a tangent.

and i think tube rolling threads even for digital can be added to analog threads as calm learning spots.

It is more difficult, maybe impossible? for majority to demo analog front end upgrades at home than digital, hence maybe the necessity for digging deeper and having more meaningful, serious forum discussions before spending bucks for non-returnable items. Not to mention the more complicated, expertise setup requirements.
OTOH…99% of digital audio/cables/vibration control and just about everything else in audio is available for online purchase with minimum 30 day hassle free return so imo the value of fora reviews compared to in home demo are close to zero. It’s mostly plug in play, too.
You friggin buy whatever meets your various requirements based on a few different recommendations/mentions. Use your Visa card! Play in your system for a while and if you don’t like, send it back.
Do members that list their systems and then ask for recommendations for a cable or a footer or even a major component really expect to get any answers different than the last guys that asked the same question repeatedly for the past 30 years? I think not.
Point being, yes, mostly to contest/debate perspectives back and forth all in good fun.
IMO at the end of the day audio has very little to do with WBF.
Kinda like watching a decent tv show and being forced to watch the commercial breaks.

 

[Al M.]

It is more difficult, maybe impossible? for majority to demo analog front end upgrades at home than digital, hence maybe the necessity for digging deeper and having more meaningful, serious forum discussions before spending bucks for non-returnable items. Not to mention the more complicated, expertise setup requirements.
OTOH…99% of digital audio/cables/vibration control and just about everything else in audio is available for online purchase with minimum 30 day hassle free return so imo the value of fora reviews compared to in home demo are close to zero. It’s mostly plug in play, too.
You friggin buy whatever meets your various requirements based on a few different recommendations/mentions. Use your Visa card! Play in your system for a while and if you don’t like, send it back.
Do members that list their systems and then ask for recommendations for a cable or a footer or even a major component really expect to get any answers different than the last guys that asked the same question repeatedly for the past 30 years? I think not.
Point being, yes, mostly to contest/debate perspectives back and forth all in good fun.
IMO at the end of the day audio has very little to do with WBF.
Kinda like watching a decent tv show and being forced to watch the commercial breaks.

Here is the real reason why analog threads are more civilized:

Vinyl-first audiophiles are always, for whatever reasons, better or worse ones, interested in comparisons of digital to vinyl. That is how they, unintentionally or more often intentionally, foul up digital threads and make them acrimonious. That happened, for example, recently with a dCS Varese thread that ultimately grew very long mostly because of that.

Digital-first audiophiles on the other hand are usually not that interested in a comparison digital vs vinyl. That is why they leave analog threads alone, they just have no interest in needlessly screwing them up.

Vinyl-first audiophiles then practice some beating their own chest that their analog threads are so civilized, while they are the ones screwing up the digital threads and making them uncivilized.

It's too funny, really.

If it was just digital-first people discussing, the digital threads would remain civilized. There are such threads, in fact.

***

Digital-first audiophiles also usually don't start threads dedicated from the start to a debate of digital vs analog.

Vinyl-first audiophiles are usually the ones starting such acrimonious threads. Here are two examples, the first one with an intentionally and unnecessarily provocative title that is just silly if you ask me:

Why, oh why, does vinyl continue to blow away digital?

It makes no scientific sense. And I am nothing if not a diehard scientist with a PhD in computer science to boot, having spent a large part of my career teaching in one of the world’s greatest PhD programs in CS, and now working at one of the world”s leading software firms in the Bay Area. I’m...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Done with digital

I am done with digital. After having suffered thru every digital format available over the years, and never liking the sound of any of it, I am putting all my time, money and effort into my analog front-ends (turntable and tapedeck). How many of you have a similar story to tell?

www.whatsbestforum.com